DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Three Arguments Against Foundationalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Three Arguments Against Foundationalism THREE ARGUMENTS AGAINST FOUNDATIONALISM: ARBITRARINESS, EPISTEMIC REGRESS, AND EXISTENTIAL SUPPORT forthcoming in Canadian Journal of Philosophy Daniel Howard-Snyder and E.J. Coffman Abstract. Foundationalism is false; after all, foundational beliefs are arbitrary, they do not solve the epistemic regress problem, and they cannot exist without other (justified) beliefs. Or so some people say. In this essay, we assess some arguments based on such claims, arguments suggested in recent work by Peter Klein and Ernest Sosa. A particular belief of a person is basic just in case it is epistemically justified and it owes its justification to something other than her other beliefs or the interrelations of their contents; a person’s belief is nonbasic just in case it is epistemically justified but not basic. Traditional Foundationalism says that, first, if a human being has a nonbasic belief, then, at bottom, it owes its justification to at least one basic belief, and second, there are basic beliefs. Call the second thesis Minimal Foundationalism. In this essay, we assess three arguments against Minimal Foundationalism which we find in recent work of Peter Klein and Ernest Sosa.1 1. Foundationalism and Arbitrariness Peter Klein puts his case against Foundationalism succinctly as follows: [F]oundationalism is unacceptable because it advocates accepting an arbitrary reason at the base, that is, a reason for which there are no further reasons making it even slightly better to accept than any of its contraries. (Klein 1999, 297) The argument suggested here is plain enough: The Argument from Arbitrariness 1. If Foundationalism is true, then there are basic beliefs of the following kind: S’s basic belief that p is justified although there are no further reasons that make it even slightly better that S believe p rather than any of p’s contraries. 2. There can be no such beliefs. 3. So, Foundationalism is false. (1, 2) 1 Four notes in one. (1) Hereafter, we will leave the modifier “Minimal” in “Minimal Foundationalism” implicit. (2) We add “…or the interrelations of their contents” to the definition of basic belief to rule out Pure Coherentism as a version of Foundationalism. We leave this clause implicit in the text. (3) Epistemic statuses other than justification are amenable to the basic/nonbasic distinction, but to make this explicit would needlessly complicate the text. (4) Our definition of basic belief needs to be qualified; see note 3 and the text to which it is referenced. 1 A question arises: what sort of thing is a “reason,” according to Klein? As it turns out, Klein uses “reason” to refer both to beliefs, which are a certain sort of mental state, and to propositions, which are not.2 Let’s not worry about which Klein meant and consider both options. Suppose reasons are propositions. Then premise 1 reads: 1a. If Foundationalism is true, then there are basic beliefs of the following kind: S’s basic belief that p is justified although there are no further propositions that make it even slightly better that S believes p rather than any of p’s contraries. Unfortunately, 1a is false. There are versions of Foundationalism according to which there are further propositions the truth of which make it (at least) slightly better that S believes p rather than one of its contraries, even if S’s belief that p is basic and justified. To illustrate: suppose that Evan’s (allegedly) basic belief that the ball is red owes its justification to the ball’s looking red to him and not to any other beliefs of his. This supposition is compatible with a version of Foundationalism according to which Evan’s belief owes its justification to his visual experience because, in part, these two propositions are true: (A) When one’s belief that a ball is red is caused in normal circumstances by the ball’s looking red to one, it is very likely that the ball is red, much more likely than that the ball is yellow or blue, for example. (B) Evan’s belief that the ball is red was caused in normal circumstances by the ball’s looking red to him. So, on this version of Foundationalism, there are some further propositions, namely (A) and (B), the truth of which makes it (at least) slightly better that Evan believes the ball is red rather than, say, yellow or blue. Other versions of Foundationalism have the resources to make the same point, mutatis mutandis. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of one that lacks them; after all, each version of Foundationalism has some story to tell about how basic beliefs are justified and that story will consist of some propositions the truth of which would make it the case that for each basic belief that p, it is (at least) slightly better that the person who holds it believes that p rather than any of p’s contraries. Perhaps Klein’s line of thought will fare better if we take “reasons” to refer to beliefs. In that case, premise 1 of The Argument from Arbitrariness reads: 1b. If Foundationalism is true, then there are basic beliefs of the following kind: S’s basic belief that p is justified although there are no further beliefs that make it even slightly better that S believes p rather than any of p’s contraries. Is this an improvement? We think not. There are versions of Foundationalism according to which there are further beliefs the truth of which make it (at least) slightly better that S believes p rather than one of its contraries, even if S’s belief that p is basic and justified. To illustrate: consider Evan again, and suppose someone else, say William, correctly believes both (A) and (B). This supposition is compatible with a version of Foundationalism according to which Evan’s belief owes its justification to his visual experience because, in part, what William believes, namely 2 The paragraph straddling (Klein 1999, 298-99), uses 'reason' to denote a belief (where belief is a kind of mental state), while the very next paragraph uses 'reason' to denote a proposition. 2 (A) and (B), are both true. So on this version of Foundationalism, Evan’s belief can be basic even if there are some further beliefs—e.g., William’s belief that (A) and (B)—the truth of which makes it at least slightly better that Evan believes that the ball is red, rather than yellow or blue. No doubt, the same point can be made by other versions of Foundationalism, mutatis mutandis. Perhaps it matters whether Evan himself is the one who believes (A) and (B). If so, then Klein’s purposes might be better served by 1c. If Foundationalism is true, then there are basic beliefs of the following kind: S’s basic belief that p is justified although there are no further beliefs of S that make it even slightly better that S believe p rather than any of p’s contraries. Is this a change for the better? No; 1c is false. That’s because there are versions of Foundationalism, like the one sketched above, according to which S’s belief that p can be basic and justified even though there are further beliefs of S the truth of which makes it (at least) slightly better that S believes that p rather than one of its contraries. To illustrate: return to Evan, and suppose that he correctly believes both (A) and (B). That supposition does not imply that Evan’s belief that the ball is red is not basic. For the mere fact that Evan believes (A) and (B) does not imply that his belief that the ball is red owes its justification to those two beliefs of his. To suppose otherwise is to fail to distinguish two states of affairs: • Evan believes that the ball is red and Evan believes (A) and (B). • Evan’s belief that the ball is red owes its justification to his belief that (A) and (B). While the second implies the first, the first does not imply the second. Thus, so long as Evan’s belief that the ball is red does not owe its justification to his belief that (A) and (B), his belief that the ball is red might well be basic. Perhaps one will object: “But surely, if Evan believes (A) and (B), then his belief that (A) and (B) must be, at least in part, his grounds for his belief that the ball is red. In that case, Evan’s belief that the ball is red cannot be basic.” We deny both claims here. The first claim—that if Evan believes (A) and (B), then his belief that (A) and (B) must be, at least in part, his grounds for his belief that the ball is red— fails to distinguish two states of affairs: • Evan believes that the ball is red and Evan believes (A) and (B). • Evan’s belief that (A) and (B) is, in part, Evan’s grounds for believing that the ball is red. While the second implies the first, the first does not imply the second. That’s because, in general, one can believe the premises of an argument and yet not believe the conclusion on that basis but rather on the basis of something else. The second claim—that if Evan’s belief that (A) and (B) is, at least in part, his grounds for his belief that the ball is red, then the latter belief cannot be basic—is false. That’s because a basic belief can have multiple sources of justification; when it does, its epistemic status is overdetermined.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regress Argument for Moral Skepticism
    Sara Ash Writing Sample The Regress Argument for Moral Skepticism Introduction An important epistemological question about morality is whether we can be justified in believing any moral claim. Justification of moral beliefs is an important aspect of morality, because without reasons for believing moral claims, morality becomes unacceptably arbitrary. In this paper, I will present and explain the regress argument for moral justification skepticism. Afterward, I will present objections to some of the premises in the argument and accompanying responses to those objections. I conclude at the end of this paper that the regress argument, while valid, is probably not sound and therefore does not successfully undermine moral justification. The Infinite Regress Argument The infinite regress argument is an argument for general skepticism, but Walter Sinnott- Armstrong has adapted the argument to morality and suggests that “If the problems raised by these arguments cannot be solved at least in morality, then we cannot be justified in believing any moral claims” (9). This argument contains a series of conditionals whose consequents comprise disjunctions. By applying the rules of disjunctive syllogism and modus tollens, the argument is intended to show that none of the ways in which a person can be justified in believing a moral claim works. Sinnott-Armstrong’s clear and concise formulation of the infinite regress argument taken from his paper “Moral Skepticism and Justification” in the anthology Moral Knowledge?: New Readings in Moral Epistemology
    [Show full text]
  • Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series
    There Must Be A First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series Abstract Several of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God rely on the claim that causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. Because he holds that effects are ontologically dependent on their causes he holds that the relevant causal series are wholly derivative: the later members of such series serve as causes only insofar as they have been caused by and are effects of earlier members. Because the intermediate causes in such series possess causal powers only by deriving them from all the preceding causes, they need a first and non-derivative cause to serve as the source of their causal powers. Keywords Thomas Aquinas; Five Ways; Causal Series; Infinite; Causal Regress; Causation; Ontological Dependence; God; Proofs This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record, has been published in the British Journal for the History of Philosophy, September 5, 2013, copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2013.816934 A. Introduction Thomas Aquinas claims that certain sorts of causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. This claim is central to the first three of the famous five ways for demonstrating the existence of God that he presents in his Summa Theologiae (ST). Many interpreters have attacked both the claim and the considerations which Aquinas offers in support of it. Some interpreters, such as Bertrand Russell and John Hick, read Aquinas either as negligently dismissing the possibility of infinite series without a first member or as assuming a rejection of the infinite, based on certain (supposedly dubious) arguments that Aquinas puts forward elsewhere.1 Other interpreters, including distinguished scholars 1 Bertrand Russell writes that the Five Ways “depend on the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term.
    [Show full text]
  • Routledge Chapter
    Can Foundationalism Solve the Regress Problem? Declan Smithies Forthcoming in Current Controversies in Epistemology. Edited by Ram Neta. Routledge, 2014. 1. Introduction Foundationalism is a thesis about the structure of epistemic justification – that is, the distinctive kind of justification that we have for our beliefs. To a first approximation, foundationalism is the thesis that some of our beliefs are foundationally justified, while all other justified beliefs are justified in a derivative way by their relations to foundationally justified beliefs. In metaphorical terms, our belief system has the structure of a building in which the whole edifice is supported by its foundations. To make the thesis more precise, we can draw a distinction between inferentially and non-inferentially justified beliefs.1 A belief is inferentially justified if and only if it is justified in a way that depends upon the justification of other beliefs, whereas a belief is non-inferentially justified if and only if it is justified in a way that does not depend upon the justification of any other beliefs. Foundationalism can now be defined more precisely as the thesis that some beliefs are non-inferentially justified, while all other justified beliefs are inferentially justified in a way that depends on their relations to non-inferentially justified beliefs.2 Foundationalism can be understood as a thesis about the structure of justified belief in either propositional or doxastic senses of the term. A belief is 1 justified in the propositional sense if and only if the believer has justification to hold the belief, whereas a belief is justified in the doxastic sense if and only if the believer holds the belief in a way that is justified.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regress Problem
    Chapter 1 The Regress Problem Abstract The attempt to justify our beliefs leads to the regress problem. We briefly recount the problem’s history and recall the two traditional solutions, foun- dationalism and coherentism, before turning to infinitism. According to in- finitists, the regress problem is not a genuine difficulty, since infinite chains of reasons are not as troublesome as they may seem. A comparison with causal chains suggests that a proper assessment of infinitistic ideas requires that the concept of justification be made clear. 1.1 Reasons for Reasons: Agrippa’s Trilemma We believe many things: that the earth is a spheroid, that Queen Victoria reigned for more that sixty years, that Stockholm is the capital of Finland, that the Russians were the first to land on the moon. Some of these beliefs are true, others are false. A belief might be true by accident. Suppose I have a phobia which makes me believe that there is a poisonous snake under my bed. After many visits to a psychiatrist and intensive therapy I gradually try to convince myself that this belief stems from traumatic and suppressed childhood experiences. One fine day I finally reach the point where I, nerv- ous and trembling, force myself to get into bed before first looking under it. Unbeknownst to me or the psychiatrist, however, a venomous snake has escaped from the zoo and has ensconced itself under my bed. My belief in the proposition ‘There is a poisonous snake under my bed’ is true, but it is accidentally true. I do not have a good reason for this belief, since I am © The Author(s) 2017 1 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Liberty University Digital Commons Liberty University DigitalCommons@Liberty University Faculty Publications and Presentations School of Religion 2-2004 Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N. Martin Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Recommended Citation Martin, Edward N., "Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas" (2004). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 66. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/66 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Religion at DigitalCommons@Liberty University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N. Martin, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology Liberty University Thomas Aquinas often wielded the idea of an infinite regress in his theological and philosophical treatises. In the famous Five Ways, the notion of the impossibility of a regress of events or operations plays a key role in each of the first three proofs for God's existence. In a similar fashion, Aquinas incorporates this idea in his Summa Contra Gentiles in the section on the existence of God. [1] In this later work, it becomes eminently clear that Aquinas derives the idea of the impossibility of an infinite regress 'among movers and things moved' directly from the work of Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Is Wittgenstein a Foundationalist?
    1 Is Wittgenstein a Foundationalist? 1. One of the oldest sceptical problems is that of the regress of justification. Suppose that knowledge is justified true belief: surely whatever justification we possess for a particular belief must itself involve knowledge. This simple observation seems to threaten us with a vicious infinite regress of grounds for grounds for grounds, and so on without end. The sceptical problem arises because it is not clear that the regress can be blocked in a satisfactory way. If at some point we refuse to think of new things to say, the sceptic will say we are just making an assumption, which is no basis for knowledge. If we find ourselves returning to something already said, he will say that we are reasoning in a circle, which is also no basis for knowledge. Call this unpalatable menu of options “Agrippa’s Trilemma.” Traditional foundationalism tries to solve this problem by postulating epistemologically basic beliefs or terminating judgments. The defining feature of such beliefs or judgments is that they are justified without owing their justification to any inferential connections further beliefs. Traditionally, this is taken to imply that basic beliefs are intrinsically credible. As intrinsically credible, they constitute a stratum of basic knowledge on which all other knowledge depends. It is not easy to make clear sense of the notion of intrinsic credibility. Furthermore, to the extent that we can make sense of it, we are bound to find that the class of basic beliefs is extremely restricted. We then face the problem of recovering a useful superstructure of knowledge, starting with this restricted basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Basic Beliefs Help to Answer the Epistemic Regress Problem?
    Skepticism, Foundationalism, and the Epistemic Regress Problem: Can basic beliefs help to answer the epistemic regress problem? Matthew Hale H399- Honors Thesis Advisor: Dr. Andrew Cling April 24, 2012 Hale- 1 The debate over the epistemic regress problem is one of the most philosophically challenging and important ones philosophers encounter. The problem directly affects whether or not we can have reasons for propositions. There are numerous theories postulated by philosophers that purport to solve the problem. The proposed responses can be divided into two groups, skeptics and anti-skeptics. Skepticism rejects all of the theories that argue we can have evidential support and, in its strongest version, claims that we cannot have reasons for propositions. This skeptical problem provides a significant challenge to anti-skeptical arguments because it is based on propositions the anti-skeptic seems to be committed to. Anti-skeptical views are attempts to respond to the epistemic regress problem. One such response is the foundationalist response. I propose that the foundationalist response provides the best answer to the epistemic regress problem because it allows for a stopping place in reasoning necessary to have non-arbitrary reasons for support. One problem a foundationalist faces is when determining what kinds of propositions could end the epistemic regress problem. I propose that the kinds of things that can end the regress of reasons without themselves requiring support are sensory states. In this paper I will consider the epistemic regress problem and the skeptical argument, and then defend a view of non-doxastic support proposed by Peter Markie. The epistemic regress problem is an epistemological problem.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 350-Alston
    Philosophy 350 Prof. Clare Batty Alston, “Two Types of Foundationalism” 1. The Structure of Justification Foundationalism and coherentism are competing views about the structure of justification—that is, about how our body of beliefs is structured. Distinction: mediate justification and immediate justification. Mediately justified beliefs: beliefs that depend for their justification on other beliefs that are themselves justified. Immediately justified beliefs: beliefs that do not depend for their justification on other beliefs; basic beliefs. Foundationalism: (1) not all justified beliefs are mediately justified; (2) there are immediately justified beliefs. Coherentism: (1’) every justified belief is mediately justified; (2’) there are no immediately justified beliefs. Two types of foundationalism: Simple foundationalism: a belief can be immediately justified without the subject having to be aware of this fact. This is an externalist version of foundationalism. Iterative foundationalism: the subject of an immediately justified belief must be immediately justified in believing that he is immediately justified. This is an internalist version of foundationalism. 2. An Argument Against Iterative Foundationalism: The Second-Level Argument According to Alston, there is a definitive argument against iterative foundationalism. 1. Justification is an evaluative property. 2. Evaluative properties depend on more fundamental properties. 3. If a property P depends on more fundamental properties Q, then S is justified in believing that something x is P only if S is justified in believing that x has Q and that whatever Q has P. 4. S is justified in believing that S is justified in believing that p only if S is justified in believing that the belief that p has Q and that whatever has Q is justified.
    [Show full text]
  • Dennett, Daniel C
    This work originally appeared in: Dennett, Daniel C. "The Role of the Computer Metaphor in Understanding the Mind." In Computer Culture: the Scientific, Intellectual, and Social Impact of the Computer, edited by Heinz R. Pagels, 266-75. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1984. This is Daniel C. Dennett’s final draft before publication. It has been modified to reflect the pagination of the published version of the work. The Role of the Computer Metaphor in Understanding the Mind Daniel C. Dennett Department of Philosophy Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 02155 Professor Sherry Turkle has mentioned that when children look inside a computer toy, they find something utterly inscrutable: a little chip with no moving parts. They cannot make any sense of it at all. The same thing is true, of course, if you take off the top of somebody's skull and look at his brain. Absolute inscrutability. And oddly enough, it does not help if you take out your microscope and look at the details of the brain very closely. You will no more see a thought or an idea or a pain or an intention if you look at the synapses or neurotransmitters than if you look at the hypothalamus or occipital cortex or the other large parts of the brain. There are several responses to this inscrutability or opacity of the brain. The first, and traditional, response is dualism: the ball of stuff we see between the ears could not possibly explain the mind, so the mind must be made of some other stuff altogether, some God-like, nonmechanical stuff.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide Through Lewis Carroll's Regress Argument
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Sussex Research Online Norms, Reasons and Reasoning: A Guide Through Lewis Carroll’s Regress Argument (penultimate draft) Corine Besson Forthcoming in: The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity (Daniel Star ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press) Introduction It is natural to think that our reasoning is governed by epistemic principles. Roughly, these are principles that tell us what to believe. It is natural, then, to think that there are principles, which in some sense we know or accept, and that we sometimes follow in our reasoning about what to believe. Arguably, aspects of our reasoning are deductive: a standard example of how epistemic principles might govern reasoning about what to believe is that of how logical principles might govern deductive reasoning. Consider for instance the logical principle of Modus Ponens, according to which Q logically follows from both P and if P, then Q. It is thus natural to think that your knowledge or acceptance of this principle governs your reasoning involving Modus Ponens. 1 This paper concerns the connection between knowing or accepting a logical principle such as Modus Ponens – indeed Modus Ponens will be my case study – and actions of reasoning involving it. What is it to know or accept Modus Ponens? How might we give an account of such knowledge or acceptance in a way that underwrites its connection to reasoning using Modus Ponens? Although correct, the idea that there is a connection between knowledge or acceptance of Modus Ponens and reasoning involving Modus Ponens is, as it stands, somewhat vague.
    [Show full text]
  • Mind-Body Dualism: a Neo-Leibnizian Argument David Kendall Casey Rhode Island College, [email protected]
    Rhode Island College Digital Commons @ RIC Honors Projects Overview Honors Projects 4-2017 Mind-Body Dualism: A Neo-Leibnizian Argument David Kendall Casey Rhode Island College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/honors_projects Part of the Philosophy of Mind Commons Recommended Citation Casey, David Kendall, "Mind-Body Dualism: A Neo-Leibnizian Argument" (2017). Honors Projects Overview. 133. https://digitalcommons.ric.edu/honors_projects/133 This Honors is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Projects at Digital Commons @ RIC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects Overview by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ RIC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MIND-BODY DUALISM: A NEO-LEIBNIZIAN ARGUMENT By David Kendall Casey An Honors Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Honors in The Department of Philosophy Rhode Island College April, 2017 Abstract This paper attempts to construct a novel argument against the theory of materialism in Philosophy of Mind. Specifically, I argue that materialism cannot be a sufficient answer to the mind-body problem. That is, in the attempt to provide a satisfactory answer as to how the mind is related to the body, the claim that the mind is identical to the brain, I contend, is untenable. First, I explicate the principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, then I use it to demonstrate the falsity of the claim: the mind = the brain. In doing so, I argue that the mind and the brain do not have the same properties in virtue of what I’ve deemed a “neo-Leibnizian” argument.
    [Show full text]